Adaptive time step for track subroutine with electron density parameter.

[hayashiw]

Work in progress:

• adaptive time step for cylindrical_track subroutine (passive grid)
• add full list of parameters for splitting (electron density, ion density, etc.)

[lstagner]

Whats the status of this?

[hayashiw]

@lstagner I'm working on the track_cylindrical which is proving more difficult than the cartesian track subroutine

[lstagner]

Don't forget you also need to modify the idl version of check_inputs and write_namelist

[lstagner]

quick thought. instead of having the tolerance be defined by fractional change over the cell intersection have it be change per centimeter that way it works for both the beam and passive grid

[hayashiw]

@lstagner the fractional split_tol works for both grids, should that be implemented as an additional option rather than replace the current one?

[lstagner]

I would just prefer not having separate switches for the beam and passive grids. What is your reasoning behind having p_adaptive

[lstagner]

The comment about having the split_tol be per centimeter is to have the tolerance more akin to a gradient. For example, the "values cant change more than 10% over 1 cm" makes more sense than "values cant change more than 10% over a cell" because the sizes of beam grid and the passive grid cells are different

[hayashiw]

Would there be a case where the user would want to use a plasma parameter to split the passive grid that's different from the one used to split the beam grid?

[alvin-garcia]

@hayashiw, please write some documentation before getting your branch merged. Visit the documentation website and decide an appropriate location/tab to insert instructions for users. Then, open the corresponding folder in FIDASIM/docs/ and write details about your project.

[hayashiw]

Removed p_adaptive, added information to the docs.

[hayashiw]

Included sanity checks in read_inputs in print section to utilize the error variable.

[hayashiw]

Most recent commit should say "Added units for split_tol in docs"

[lstagner]

Have you run this version? What should be a good split_tol value?

[hayashiw]

@lstagner I've been running cases with values of 0.1, 0.01, and 0.002. I'll run them again with the inv_dl.

[lstagner]

Have you completed the runs?

[hayashiw]

@lstagner I have a run with 0.01 tolerance but I have yet to run 0.1 and 0.002. I'll be running them today and then I'll upload images of their outputs for comparison.

[lstagner]

Alright post the plots and I'll merge if everything is OK

[hayashiw]

@lstagner An issue came up with load_neutrals, discussing it with Alvin.

[lstagner]

Good to merge?

[lstagner]

@shaunhaskey you may find this change useful

[shaunhaskey]

This looks great, thanks @hayashiw, @lstagner ! I'll try testing it out over the next few weeks.